Business, Economics and Taxes

November 15, 2010

After State Sen. Bill Brady lost the Illinois gubernatorial race to Pat Quinn, it was no surprise to me. If the election was close enough, the Daley Democratic Machine would find some way to make sure Quinn had the votes to hand him the election.

I am 56 years old and I lived in Chicago for the first 50 years of my life. I remember how the presidential election was stolen from Richard Nixon in 1960. As usual, late returns from Cook County put John F. Kennedy over the top in what was one of the closest elections in our nation's history, up until that point. In fact, did you ever notice that when an election is close, the last votes to be counted are from Cook County? This is not an accident, in my opinion. Therefore, it's not a coincidence that absentee ballots are the last to be tabulated in Chicago because the Democrats need to know how many votes it will take them to win.

In fact, it is no longer conjecture whether the 1960 election was stolen by the Democratic political apparatus in Chicago and Cook County. Deals were made with the Mob by Joe Kennedy, the then-patriarch of the Kennedy clan. Louisiana, one of the three most corrupt states in America (along with Illinois and New Jersey) also played a part in the theft of a presidency in 1960 and the rest, as they say, is history.

This year it was reported Bill Brady won every county in Illinois, except for three. Out of millions of votes cast in the state, Brady ended up losing by a mere few thousands votes.

I wrote a column (see related article below) which, essentially, said Brady possibly lost the election because he did not energize the pro-family base of the Republican Party. But I no longer believe this is true. Every socially conservative Republican knew Brady was better on the issues they cared about than Pat Quinn. I believe it was the fiscal wing of the GOP which, in far too many instances, saw Brady as a tax and spend Republican. In fact, this past summer, I attended a banquet for a public policy group and outside there were individuals who were handing out anti-Brady flyers. They were calling Brady the "Tax Villain of the Month" and depicted Brady behind bars. When I questioned members of the group, National Taxpayers United, I was told the degrading and doctored photograph on their hand-outs was simply meant to encourage Brady to sign their group's pledge stating, if elected, Brady would not sign any legislation which would raise taxes.

What I have learned after nearly 20 years of following Illinois politics is that there is a chasm between social and fiscal Republicans which often leads to the demise of good GOP candidates. Fiscal Republicans refuse to make any connection between social and fiscal issues. But one of the reasons America is in such dire financial straits is due to the fact that fiscal policies led to the demise of the American family. In the 1960's, Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" actually created many of the social problems now facing America.

Minorities and poor people were encouraged to depend on government largesse. Johnson's "Great Society" created a welfare state where parents were rewarded for not getting married and having children out of wedlock. The more children a mother had, the more she received from the government, i.e., rent subsidies, financial assistance and food stamps. The group hardest hit by these programs was the African-American community which previously had stable families where both parents took part in raising their children. The government actually made sure fathers stayed away by checking homes to make sure the mother was on her own and not receiving any assistance from the father. Today, the number of children born out of wedlock in the black community is over 70%. But President Johnson's "Great Society" also bled over into other races, including poor whites, where today over 40% of children live in single-parent households.

But none of this took place in a vacuum that only affected poor blacks, whites and other groups. Johnson's policies had a negative impact on American society over all. Latch-key children became the norm. Radical liberal women's rights organizations, like NOW (National Organization for Women), actually advanced the premise women could have it all. Being a stay at home mom became a bad thing, according to these groups, because simply raising children was not enough to fulfill their lives. There were perfume ads which touted how a woman could "bring home the bacon, fry it up in the pan..." But there was only one catch to Johnson's "Great Society" which cost American taxpayers $5 trillion before the turn of the 21st century. And with the dependence on government, came higher taxation which eventually made it impossible for a family to survive on one income alone.

In the 1950's and 60's, my father worked and my mother stayed at home. She did not feel unfulfilled as a woman, as was the case with a vast majority of women who were mothers in American society at that time. My father's income was more than enough to support our family. We did not live in a palatial home, but there was always food on the table, money to pay the bills and then some.

Today, there is a reluctance by fiscal conservatives to recognize that big government and high taxation are inexorably connected with the social ills which plague our nation. I heard from some of these fiscal conservatives who blamed Brady's loss on his pro-family voting record, saying the state Senator from Bloomington did not pay enough attention to fiscal matters. Some even compared him to his Democratic opponent, Pat Quinn, who after elected, stated he had a mandate from the electorate to raise taxes on Illinois residents. This monolithic thinking has driven a wedge between those of us who care deeply about social issues and those who only care about money. I'll never forget one individual who said that whenever he's around a candidate who's labeled as a compassionate conservative he puts his hand on his wallet.

However, the facts regarding the downfall of American society are clear. According to FBI statistics, most crimes committed by young people take place in between the hours when school lets out and their parent(s) get home from work. America's juvenile justice system is overloaded, costing taxpayers billions of dollars. The impact of drugs and pornography have arrested the social development skills of children who end up being adults who are not equipped with the psychological tools to function productively in our culture.

Abortion has devalued life on both ends of the spectrum...from the innocent unborn to the elderly who are now looked upon as a drain on society and the fiscal bottom line. Children are abused and, sometimes murdered, often by their own parents. Sex abuse and other forms of psychological and physical abuse leave millions of children scarred for life. These children become adults who end up abusing their children and the cycle continues.

Here is an example of how fiscal conservatives are out of touch regarding the issue of same-sex "marriage." If homosexual "marriage" becomes the law of the land, the financial cost will surely doom the Social Security system because survivor benefits will have to be paid same-sex partners or, more accurately, "husbands of husbands" or "wives of wives". Yet we rarely hear fiscal conservatives addressing this issue. They spend more time complaining that Social Security was not meant to be a retirement program than they do quantifying the cost to Social Security if same-sex "marriage" becomes the law of the land. This is a myopic view and many fiscal conservatives just don't get it.

Another example is school vouchers. The best way to stop the cycle of poverty is by providing poor children with a good education. But many fiscal conservatives vehemently oppose school vouchers and inner-city children of all races are locked into an educational system which leaves them lacking in the skills needed to live a productive life and become taxpayers themselves. In many cities, the school drop-out rate is over 50%. This has led to young people joining street gangs, committing crimes and costing our legal system many more billions of dollars.

In a perfect world, the cost of social ills in America would be considered in the argument which advances fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, this is not the case and we are left with a society spinning out of control and Americans are left with a huge bill, both in a human sense and monetarily.

What's the answer in Illinois? Many politicians believe the expansion of gambling will cure the state's financial woes. At the same time, they deny the human cost of gambling addiction which devastates the addicted individual, his or her family and society. There is no candidate who everyone will agree with on every issue. But there are individuals and organizations who insist that a person running for office agree with them on just their issue alone. If they do not do so, they become the enemy, as was the case with the hand-out targeting Brady from the single-issue group, National Taxpayers United. Yet the Republican Party does have a political platform in Illinois and nationally and Bill Brady's voting record adhered to that platform. Abraham Lincoln, one of our greatest Presidents, and one of the founders of the GOP, said, "you can't please all the people all the time." But literally, the Devil is in the details and there are those who, apparently, seem willing to sacrifice the greater good.

Hopefully, one day we'll see a breakdown of how Brady lost his gubernatorial bid. In fact, I wish Brady would have called for a recount, especially in the three counties where he lost and specifically Cook County. But the election is over. Brady conceded and we are left with the same corrupt political system called "The Chicago Way". Vote early, vote often, where even the dead vote.

Approximately two years ago, I became aware of other right to life concerns, including what is taking place in America's health care system regarding end of life issues. I wrote a story for the Illinois Family Institute, titled "Hospice, Living Wills, Futile Care: Hospice, Hospitals & Nursing Homes Have License To Kill" which was posted on October 5th, 2010 http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=35036.

My piece related the story of how the culture of death has permeated America's health care system. The death panels former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin warned us about regarding what was included in President Barack Obama's health care reform law have actually been in place and are entrenched in the delivery of health care services for the elderly and all Americans whose health care may now be dependent on solely economic issues. I wrote about how some hospitals, nursing homes and hospice care providers now hasten death for those who may be a drain on the fiscal bottom line.

However, in my story I made it clear that not all health care facilities are bad.

The purpose of the column was to inform the public of the dangers in a system which is quickly evolving into death factories where patients become victims, along with their loved ones, who are left with guilt and remorse.

In 20 years of writing articles and columns, I have learned the most effective means to communicate and educate the public is by sharing personal experiences...whether mine or others. Thankfully, there were those who responded to the above mentioned column and were willing to make their very personal and often tragic experiences public regarding the treatment of their loved ones by a medical system they trusted.

The comments below are not from people with an agenda. Indeed, it had to be very hard for them to relive and relate their experiences. Some of these stories literally brought me to tears. However, I'll let their words speak for themselves.

******

The following comment is from Christina Bowen and is included in my column "Hospice, Living Wills, Futile Care: Hospice, Hospitals & Nursing Homes Have License To Kill".

I honestly believe with all my heart that if Hospice had not been in charge of my mother's care, that she would still be alive today. My mom was 70 years old and had cancer. We are well aware that this is a terminal disease, yet she was no where near the end of her life.

My mom had bone cancer in both of her upper legs. She was in a wheel chair so it was hard for her to travel. She was also on bottled oxygen. After several months of consideration she decided not to take any more chemotherapy or radiation. The only thing she needed was something to control her pain, because the cancer was not going to go away. On September the first, I took her to see her oncologist for the last time. They decided together that Hospice could provide her with the care she needed from here on out. On that day my mom was of sound mind and doing well. We left the doctor's office and went out to dinner together.

The next day the Hospice nurses came to the house for an evaluation. They took control over all of mom's medications and instructed us not to call 911 in case of an emergency. Everything from here on out was to be determined by the Hospice physician. They immediately increased her fentynol patch from 50mcg to 100mcg. They increased her oral pain medicine from 30mg of oxycodone to 100-120mg oxycodone per day.

The changes started immediately. At first she seemed to be "high". She was sleepier than normal, kind of nodding out all the time. Started being confused, loss of appetite, and had trouble swallowing. We called the Hospice nurses and reported the side effects. My sister and I were convinced that she was receiving too much pain medicine and that she might even overdose from it. They insisted that it was just a part of the final stages of life. Even though no one ever came to the house to check her out.

As time went by the side effects worsened. She started having trouble breathing, sweating, and even hallucinations. She finally went into a coma. We were on the phone with Hospice constantly trying to seek help for our mom. We knew that she was being overdosed, but again was told that it was a normal part of the death cycle.

On Sept. the 8th Hospice finally showed up at the house. Mom was in a coma and unable to take her medicines. They insisted that she was just in her final stages of life and the morphine had nothing to do with what we were seeing. They said she must continue to take her morphine, so they went to the pharmacy and ordered a liquid form to be administered. She died later that evening.

I know cancer kills people. I know that my mom was going to eventually lose her battle and die, too. But I also know that she was not there yet. She was just in pain, she wasn't dying. So in a time span of 5-6 days, our mom went from being an independent, strong willed woman, to a child like infant, and then finally just gone.

I blame myself for allowing this to happen. Looking back I know I could have done something to have prevented this. I should have followed my instincts and removed the patch, stopped the oral drugs, and took her to the hospital against their instructions. But I didn't. I let them kill my mom.

So, for anyone reading this, I beg you to please, please, think long and hard about signing a loved one up for Hospice. And make sure that you are ready to say goodbye when you do.

We had an experience that ended somewhat differently. My mother fell and was sent to a hospital. While I wasn't there, she was released to a care center, (we still don't understand how that happened). Without our knowledge she was placed on many drugs. We watched her decline rapidly while each day she demanded she be allowed to go home. During this time she developed partial paralysis on one side leading us to conclude she had a stroke. This was not diagnosed by the doctors.

We were finally able to box them in. Some years before, she had, in writing through her lawyer, made me responsible for her care if she were ever unable to make her own decisions. In a meeting with management, we made the point that she wanted to go home. If she was competent to make that decision, they should obey her demand and release her. If she wasn't competent, I had the legal responsibility to decide her care and my decision was to let her go home. They argued for over an hour why she needed to stay and I had to threaten legal action before they finally gave in.

She has been home now for years and caring for her is a struggle, but we believe the alternative results would have been obvious and rapid. She stopped all drugs after coming home and gradually got better. She will never be the same but now she makes her own decisions on what care she will accept, (even in her nineties, she has a powerful will). We know we have her for a limited time but we chose the will of the "patient" and life over the "experts". As Christians, how could we have chosen any other path? Posted by rt on 10/07 at 09:00 PM

We, as a nation, have been gradually indoctrinated with the various concepts that lead to death. Whether it is with abortion or end of life issues - cost vs. benefit, we are being led down a road that has no light at the end. There are proponents of ridding society of individuals who do not carry their own weight and contribute to society to a level that makes them worth keeping.

We have a right to "life". It is a gift from God. When we accept that the determination as to when our life should end should be made by someone else, we give into whatever their agenda might be. Posted by Mike Foil on 10/07 at 07:39 PM

My heart goes out to Ms. Bowen. Something similar happened to my father. He had prostate cancer which had spread to his bones. After being fried from the radiation etc., he too was in pain, but still quite lucid. He was always a strong man physically and mentally with a heart of gold. I watched hospice turn this wonderful, witty, beautiful man into a vegetable in a matter of days. He became combative and hallucinated and after a short time his personality was unrecognizable. The father we had loved was no more. We took him to the hospital and he died a few hours later. I remember something my father said to us when he opened the box of drugs hospice gave us with the Oxycodone, etc. in it, "like opening Pandora's box huh?" How right he was! I too felt there was something I should or shouldn't have done, that it was my fault. I realize that God has the final say and we can only do the best we can with what there is to work with. If we were all doctors, we might stand a better chance of saving our families and make sure that the utmost will be done for them. Ms. Bowen, like many of us, relied on the medical profession to help her mother. How very scary things are becoming, huh! Thank you for this article and the information! Posted by j on 10/07 at 03:32 PM

Has anyone noticed the number of times people are blaming the baby boomers for our current situation? Could this be deliberate, so that when the time comes, our children and grandchildren will feel no guilt as we are dumped in the nearest home and forgotten? They are no longer taught to respect the elderly, they are taught the elderly are stealing from them and destroying their future. Could it be the baby boomers were cheated and lied to? Are they to be held responsible when they paid into Social Security their entire working lives, only to have it looted by a crooked Congress? Yes, the boomers were conned. Yes, they made the mistake of working hard so their children wouldn't have to. They were horribly scammed by a Ponzi or Madoff government.

The end goal is to make the youth despise boomers. Until this changes and the children of this nation are taught to love and respect their elders, the sick and disabled and to realize they were fooled, just like everyone else, there is no hope for change. Life is no longer a gift, it has become a cost ratio and a burden. Posted by PJPony on 10/07 at 07:29 AM

I worked in the healthcare field for over 35 years and know for a fact that this goes on with hospice. I have seen it over and over again. But, I do know there are families who grow tired of caring for sick elderly parents and just wants the end to come . I also know from personal experience that I would not except any part of hospice care. My husband was real sick 4 years ago and went from 190 pounds to 125 pounds in a few months while in the hospital. When the time came for his discharge they wanted him placed in a nursing home under hospice care. I told them no. The doctor got mad and hung up the phone on me. To make a long story short my husband is doing great now. Has gained weight and is able to care for himself. He has enjoyed 4 years of life that he would not have had if I had placed him under hospice care. Posted by Norma Hughes on 10/07 at 06:50 AM

October 22, 2010

It seems President Barack Obama has decided to demonstrate fiscal restraint, but his turn towards less federal spending has come at the expense of Social Security recipients in 2010 and, as recently announced, in 2011.

Those who receive Social Security benefits will not receive a Cost Of Living Adjustment (COLA) in their monthly checks for the second year in a row. According to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), whose data is compiled under the auspices of the U.S. Dept. of Labor, there has been no inflation during the past two years. Subsequently, with no inflation, according to the CPI, senior citizens, the disabled, the temporarily disabled, widows, widowers and their dependents will have to survive on the same level of Social Security income they have been receiving since 2009.

There are those who will claim the CPI is a trusted independent source which gauges inflation in America. However, Hilda L. Solis, the Secretary of the Dept. of Labor is a political appointee. Subsequently, the federal agency responds to the whims of the Obama administration. With the U.S. deficit and accumulated debt soaring into the trillions of dollars under Obama's presidency, he has decided to make some tough cuts in spending. Unfortunately, while Obama's spending spree continues, he has become fiscally conservative, but only when it comes to the federal government's obligation to Social Security recipients. With the "hope and change" President's $500 billion projected cuts in Medicare over the next ten years, which is included in the Health Care Reform law, Obama has further targeted those with the least political clout by continuing the COLA freeze.

A ten year old child will tell you the price of candy has gone up since 2009. And every American who has to operate under a budget fully comprehends that the money it took to buy three bags of groceries in 2009 now will only buy two. The cost of energy has gone up, including gasoline prices which, in many parts of the country, average over $3 per gallon. But most experts agree that gasoline prices will skyrocket after the midterm elections.

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico should have increased fuel prices dramatically. However, through the skillful manipulation of oil supplies, the Obama White House has kept a lid on the cost of gasoline at the fuel pump. In the past, a stiff wind or a small fire at a refinery would send gasoline prices through the roof immediately. But with the election looming and with Democrat's heads already on the political chopping block, a spike in energy costs would have further doomed Obama's political party and something had to be done. Anyone who believes that gasoline prices were not artificially manipulated is either naive or drinking a very powerful Kool-Aid cocktail.

However, perhaps the group hit hardest with the continued COLA freeze are those seniors and survivors with dependents whose rent, property taxes, education expenses, etc. go up every year (like all Americans) but they are locked into the fixed income they receive from Social Security. Yet what's good for the goose, apparently, is not good for the gander. In 2009, Congress voted themselves a healthy pay increase to keep pace with the cost of living. They also voted themselves a very substantial increase in their yearly entertainment budget which amount, on an individual basis, would dwarf the average annual payments received by Social Security recipients. Expect the lame duck session of Congress to give themselves another healthy pay raise, after the November 2nd election.

It is clear Obama and the Democratic Party have written off the votes of seniors and the disabled. But Republicans can assume some of the blame themselves by not raising hell fire over the COLA freeze and other financial hits being taken by those who receive Social Security benefits and Medicare. Let's remember, even with the flood of baby boomers who are now approaching retirement age, Social Security would have been totally solvent--if the politicians in Washington, D.C. had left the Social Security trust fund off budget. There should have been more than enough money in the Social Security trust fund to keep the program solvent for many years. However, when Congress raided the trust fund decades ago and replaced the revenue therein with an I.O.U., the funding problems began and the system was doomed to eventual fiscal insolvency.

Yes, I know, many younger Americans believe they will never see a dime of what they are paying into the Social Security system as it is now formulated when they retire. This is probably an accurate assessment. Less than a half century ago, those paying into Social Security outnumbered recipients by 13 to 1. Today that figure is quickly approaching three to one and the money simply will not be there as Social Security is now formulated. Again, there is no money in the Social Security trust fund. And talk about a lock box is nothing more than political subterfuge used to mislead the American public.

Yet there are millions of Americans who have been paying into the Social Security system for as long as half a century. We are not simply talking about the poor. Those impacted by Obama's financial policies include the middle class which may be the hardest hit during this President's attempt to redistribute wealth. Obama never meant to increase the standard of living of America's poor, contrary to what many believed he was saying during his presidential campaign. Obama's plan from the beginning was to bring down the standard of living of all Americans to more closely mirror the economic status of the world, including Third World countries. Eventually, there will be the elite--which will include Obama and the political ruling class. The rest of us will, essentially, be serfs, akin to the fixed social strata of the Middle Ages...where the American dream was just that...a dream.

Hopefully, in less than two weeks, Obama's plan for America's economic destruction will be temporarily derailed. In the mean time, any senior citizen who votes for a Democrat and Republicans who have made politics a profession rather than a service to their country deserves what they get...which won't be much.

And here's some more bad news for those who are dependent on Social Security: Expect the COLA freeze to continue through at least 2012.

Okay, let's all remember what we are being told by the Democratic majority. There is no inflation, America's economy is on the rebound and Obama's stimulus package created millions of shovel-ready jobs. But the operative question here is: Just what was the American public shoveled?

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus, there is a Tooth Fairy and the check is in the mail.

August 31, 2010

You are driving down I-57, I-55, I-90/94, I-294 or any other major highway in Illinois. Suddenly, you see a sign that reads "road construction ahead for next 15 miles". The speed limit drops from 65 to 55 miles per hour and traffic begins to back up. Let's say you are traveling north on I-55 and you are unexpectedly riding on a road which is graded and unpaved. The other lane is in its usual condition, in need of repair or not, but there is no construction crew in sight. In fact, there are no road crews for the entire stretch of highway that is supposed to be under construction. You might ask why this is the case. Well, private contractors in Illinois have learned how to play the funding game. Instead of completing one stretch of road, before tearing up another, you find a patch work of torn up highway, sometimes for over 100 miles or more.

There is a reason for this. Construction companies have learned, if they tear up a piece of road at mile marker 155 through 160 and then tear up another section of highway between mile marker 170 and 180 and repeat this process infinitum, the contracts they received from the state will have to be fulfilled. In the past, if the state of Illinois ran out of money to pay for repairing the infrastructure of the Illinois highway system, a section of road would be left for another year's budget. But if a road is partially completed, covering a substantial distance, the work cannot be left for another year. That is why you will see a ten mile stretch of highway--which is in different stages of repair--not being worked on.

Sometimes it's so ridiculous, a piece of highway will be torn up for a quarter mile and traffic will slow to 55 or perhaps 45 for that short distance and there will be no road work being done for 25 miles or more. Often you will see signs which says "road construction ahead" and then come across another sign which tells you that you are out of the construction zone when there was no construction being done. This is a very clever bit of legal gamesmanship being practiced by contractors who want to make sure the contracts they signed for the jobs they bid on and won are fulfilled. And really, in a way, you can't blame them.

For example, if the state signs a contract for a company to do 100 miles of road, that business will make sure they get paid for 100 miles of road repair by doing it peacemeal. In the past, road construction was done in a linear fashion, complete one section of road and move on to the next.

So, the next time you're sitting in a traffic jam and wondering how long it's going to take you today to get through the construction zone, first of all you can thank the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" better known as the stimulus package, for your plight. No, the highway you're traveling on probably didn't need repair, but there were billions of dollars to spend. Your tax dollars, or let's say your children's tax dollars or perhaps their children's tax dollars. And thanks to some clever road construction contractors, you might expect that ride--which usually took a half hour--to last twice the time. So, pop in another one of your favorite cd's or listen to your I-Pod and plan to leave early, but at least now you know the reason why.

Just a few days ago, President Barack Obama celebrated the passage of H.R. 4213, a $34 billion bill which will extend unemployment benefits for recipients in 2010. I feel terrible for the millions of hard-working people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. But the fact is unemployment insurance was never meant to be a federal entitlement.

Sadly, there are Americans who will have to collect unemployment insurance far past the time this program was designed to assist those who lost their jobs. Though most collecting unemployment would much rather be working, there are reports some are actually turning down jobs for a number of reasons. There are those who are asking potential employers if they can get paid "under the table", in order to continue receiving their bi-monthly unemployment checks. The reason for this may not seem as sinister as it appears because the few available jobs simply will not provide enough money to pay their bills.

And here is one more undeniable fact. The jobs of many of those who became unemployed after our nation's economy tanked will never return. For example, good manufacturing jobs and the companies which employed millions of Americans have permanently moved offshore. High taxation, government regulations and cheap foreign labor has driven many corporations out of the United States into the waiting arms of countries like Mexico, Japan and China. Businesses in the service industry, including telecommunications, find operating costs far less prohibitive in India, Taiwan and the Philippines. Much of this is a result of unions which feathered the beds of not only themselves, but politicians as well. Companies could no longer match union demands for ever-increasing employee benefits and salaries which essentially drove their own constituents out of the jobs market.

As usual, the Obama administration is using this tragic situation to expand government, put more Americans at the whim of federal largesse and ultimately control the lives of millions who are now dependent on the government in order to survive.

The Obama administration never misses an opportunity to use the suffering of the American people for political gain. Initially, Republicans tried to hold their ground against more unchecked spending by a government which is out of control regarding financial responsibility. However, since Obama has the bully pulpit and the ear of the liberal establishment media, Obama was painting those who were against the extension of unemployment benefits as cold-hearted and uncaring. Some members of the GOP rightfully believed the $34 billion should have been taken out of the $862 billion stimulus package or paid for through the elimination of wasteful government spending. Of course, Obama won the political argument and another $34 billion has been tacked on to the national debt which will be paid for by countless generations to come.

To add to the problem, states that find themselves in smothering debt will be even more hard-pressed to meet their financial obligations related to the extension of unemployment benefits. For example, California--which is near the brink of bankruptcy--provides a substantial percentage of the high benefits they pay to those on unemployment rolls. A state which was recently paying some of its bills with I.O.U.'s will find itself in a deeper financial hole from which recovery is nowhere in sight.

The reality of having so many Americans dependent on unemployment benefits is clear. They are like addicts who are at the mercy of a President whose policies have destroyed millions of jobs, contrary to the propaganda spewed forth from the White House every day. In fact, while hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil were spilling daily into the Gulf of Mexico for months, Obama was on a national tour touting the success of his stimulus scam which supposedly created and/or saved millions of jobs. Obama was so brazen that he recently had a photo-op with three Americans who were depending upon the extension of their unemployment benefits because they could not find jobs. As many conservative pundits pointed out, Obama looked foolish because on one hand the President was claiming his stimulus program was a huge success while on the other hand, he inferred unemployment benefits should be extended because so many Americans could not find jobs. You can't have it both ways, Mr. President, and most of us realize the latter is true.

I suppose the most insulting aspect of the entire situation related to the unemployment benefit extension legislation is the fact the bills were co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) and U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Connecticut). These are two individuals who should be in handcuffs and shackles while serving time in a federal prison because of their monitoring of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which many economists believe plunged American into its current recession. Instead, these two legislators, who acted criminally, are doing their best to help Obama, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-California) destroy our nation's economy.

Unemployment insurance is not an entitlement. One day, these benefits will run out for those who depend on this money to buy groceries, clothe their children, pay their mortgages or rent, along with the other expenses that must be paid by every American family. These Americans must live on a budget. They cannot print their own money. They cannot borrow from foreign nations to meet their needs. They are not too big to fail. Yet, ultimately, this will be the case. I believe this is the ultimate goal of the Obama administration. Socialists, like those who are in the Congressional majority, contend the government knows best. The only question that remains to be asked is whether it's too late to undo the damage that has been done by liberals who control every branch of government.

July 16, 2010

EDITOR'S NOTE:Dan Patlak was an analyst at the Board of Review for eight years. Patlak has been a taxpayer advocate in Wheeling Township where he is in his second term as Wheeling Township Assessor. Patlak is a Certified Illinois Assessing Officer and has been a licensed real estate broker since 1986. Patlak is a member of the National Taxpayers Union and is endorsed by the National Taxpayers United of Illinois PAC.

DAN PATLAK -- IN HIS OWN WORDS

My campaign for Commissioner of the Cook County Board of Review has adopted a radical new idea…educating taxpayers so they can better understand and control their property taxes. Traveling throughout the county, I hear the same frustration, confusion and anger from taxpayers about their property taxes. There is a widespread lack of understanding of how tax bills are computed and where the money goes. There is also a great deal of uncertainty about what the next bill will bring.

My campaign is built on the premise that taxpayers have a need and a right to understand their tax system. Through our web site “Education Center” at www.ElectPatlak.com we are taking a first step in demystifying the system for concerned citizens. With information comes confidence and power and it is important that “the people” and not the government possess the power in our democratic society. Our Education Center provides information to property owners so they will have the ability to determine whether they are paying an appropriate share of the overall tax burden. It also encourages them to think about where their tax dollars are going and how they are being spent.

In addition, our campaign will soon be rolling out a series of short educational videos produced to answer the most commonly asked questions about the property tax system.

Whether or not I am elected as a Commissioner of the Board of Review I will continue with this radical idea by constantly looking for ways to educate the electorate about how their government works and I will continue to be an advocate for the taxpayers of Cook County, Illinois.

July 13, 2010

RFFM.org To launch Effort To Inform Seniors, Retired And Disabled About Issues Involving This Group

by Daniel T. Zanoza

EDITOR'S NOTE:As a disabled individual myself, I fully understand that the Obama Administration now sees senior citizens and disabled individuals from the middle-class and poor alike as a politically expendable voting bloc. Some might claim my efforts may be self-serving, but it has become clear to me groups including AARP are no longer looking out for the best interests of seniors. The disabled are also suffering under Obama's policies which impact all Americans. Subsequently, I will issue a quarterly newsletter to subscribers who want to learn more about what's happening related to topics they care about.

If you are a senior, retired or a disabled individual, you probably have noticed the Obama administration has demonstrated little, if any, care for those who fall into this group. The President's highly unpopular health care reform bill, which was rammed down the throat of the American people, included $500 billion in cuts to Medicare alone. Yes, I know the half trillion dollars which have been slashed from Medicare will supposedly be made up through the elimination of fraud and waste related to Medicare. However, it wasn't necessary to pass a bill in order to eliminate fraud and waste.

I suppose the "hope and change" Obama promised during his presidential campaign mostly dealt with his "hope" of passing his socialist agenda and the "change" is what the rest of us will get from our taxpayer dollars. And I do mean change...in the form of nickels and dimes which our dollar will be worth after the inflation the nation will soon be incurring, due to the massive debt the U.S. is piling up by borrowing money to pay for wasteful programs which will take generations to pay back.

In Illinois and across the entire nation, Obama began the assault, especially on middle-class and poor Social Security recipients, with the COLA (Cost Of Living Adjustment) freeze. Again, supposedly, the lack of a cost of living adjustment--which many Social Security recipients depend on--was due to the fact the nation's economy is not experiencing inflation, according to the Dept. of Labor's Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Most assuredly, there will be those who say the CPI is not political in any way, but if you believe that, I have some oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico available to the highest bidder. The head of the Dept. of Labor is appointed by the President. Obama needed some way to balance out his massive spending and the easiest way to do so was to cut spending (with the COLA freeze) for a voting bloc which he apparently now deems politically expendable...elderly and disabled Americans. Okay, Obama offered a phony gesture to appease this group by promising to get Congress to pass a one-time $250 payment meant to offset the COLA freeze. But that hollow gesture disappeared like the $862 billion in stimulus money that was supposed to put Americans back to work.

Here in Illinois the attack on seniors went even further. My state has a $13 billion budget deficit. What did the Democratic-controlled legislature do to help save taxpayers' money? Democratic Governor Pat Quinn signed into law a budget that slashed a program called "Circuit Breaker". The Circuit Breaker program is not an entitlement. It is a program designed to provide property tax relief, primarily for seniors, retired and disabled residents of the state. The amount previously received by those who qualified for the Circuit Breaker program would barely pay for a movie and a good dinner, but lawmakers decided to cut the program in half. I personally contacted some Illinois state Senators who were not even aware of the Circuit Breaker cuts reflected in the Illinois budget. Circuit Breaker recipients are still able to renew their license plates at a reduced rate, but the checks received in 2010 (for Fiscal Year 2009), were another reflection of that "hope and change"--with emphasis on "change". To be specific, Circuit Breaker recipients received 50 cents less on the dollar this year for property tax relief through the program, compared to years past. Again, the philosophy promoted by Obama is being mimicked in Illinois.

By the way, Illinois Democratic Governor Pat Quinn recently gave his staff a considerable pay raise. But our elected officials in Washington, D.C. voted themselves a substantial pay raise for the current fiscal year, so at least our lawmakers are being consistent at the state and national levels.

There is a name for what's happening to the millions of Americans who paid into Social Security their entire lives and expected Medicare would be there for them when they needed it. Without getting too in-depth, it's a version of "more from the fit and less from the unfit". In this case, it's less FOR the "unfit". This mindset is promoted within the health care bill passed by Congress and signed into law by Obama.

Americans heard talk about "death panels" which the establishment media and Democrats poo-pooed. Yet the death panel warnings as far as the health care law are essentially true. Government appointed panels will make life and death decisions regarding who will receive what kind of health care. And these panels will not consist of doctors or experts in the profession of medicine. Indeed the recess appointment of Craig Becker who will essentially be the head of Medicare and Medicaid is on record as being a major proponent of health care rationing.

For example, will Aunt Betty, who is 85 years old get the hip replacement she desperately needs or will it be more fiscally prudent to refuse Aunt Betty's surgery and simply give her pain medication to deal with her ailment? This type of decision will be in the hands of government bureaucrats, not Aunt Betty's doctor. Rationing of health care is a certainty under the current health care reform law and anyone who denies this fact is simply naive, not telling the truth or both.

Millions of baby boomers, who are now reaching the age of retirement, will tax America's economic system. Subsequently, those who are 65 years of age and older now represent a group some contend may no longer be productive members of our society. Millions of seniors, retired and disabled individuals now fall into this category which Obama has targeted since he has taken office. What makes matters worse is groups like the AARP--an organization whose primary goal was lobbying for the elderly--have been politically corrupted, leaving seniors, retired and the disabled without political representation in Washington, D.C.

Therefore, RFFM.org will begin to produce a quarterly e-newsletter addressing the needs of a group that finds itself on the outside looking in, politically. The e-newsletter will include information on pending legislation which will affect the elderly, retired and disabled. It will also provide action alerts and contact information for legislators.

Those who wish to receive the "Advocates for Seniors, Retired and Disabled" e-newsletter, can do so with a suggested minimum donation of $20 per year. To sign up for the RFFM / ASRD e-newsletter, go to the PayPal link below and then contact Dan@rffm.org with your name, state and e-mail address you wish to receive the e-newsletter at. Checks can also be made out to RFFM / ASRD and mailed to: RFFM / ASRD c/o Dan Zanoza, 904 21st St., # 71, Lincoln, Illinois 62656. ASRD e-newsletter subscribers will be able to receive information about programs they may qualify for as a senior, retired or disabled individual by contacting me directly.

To subscribe for the RFFM / ASRD e-newsletter or to make a secure online donation to RFFM go to the following PayPal link:

June 19, 2010

RFFM.orgis reporting the United States Census Bureau is making phone calls, contacting households which have already returned their 2010 census forms.

Some accused the U.S. Census Bureau of wasting taxpayer dollars when letters were sent out in advance informing every U.S. household that they would soon be receiving a census form in the mail. A week later, the forms arrived. The next week, a follow-up letter was issued which said, in essence, by now you should have received your form and sent it back to comply with federal law. It is not known how much these extra mailings cost American taxpayers.

But more taxpayer dollars may be wasted because the United State Census Bureau is contacting households--who have already returned their census surveys--to confirm information submitted on the original U.S. Census Bureau document.

"I was shocked," said a central Illinois resident who requested anonymity. "I received a phone call on June 15th from a census worker who was essentially reviewing with me the information I had already mailed in. My wife and I are in our late 50's and this worker was asking me if we had any newborn children since submitting the original document. I questioned the caller why the Census Bureau was wasting taxpayer dollars with such a redundant phone call. I also became concerned that the caller might not have been connected with the Census Bureau because I know of no one who had ever received such a phone call during past or current census taking periods."

When asked, the Census worker provided this individual with a toll-free number [1-866-851-2010] to call the Census Bureau, in order to confirm the call was legitimate. The individual was also provided an eight digit case number to refer to regarding their census form.

"The very next day, June 16th, I received another phone call from a different census worker. I told him I had received a call the previous day and would not answer his questions and promptly hung up. These phone calls were a clear waste of my taxpayer dollars," said the irate central Illinois resident.

The Census Bureau has always hired workers to visit households who did not return their surveys and this procedure is still a part of the census taking process.

However, RFFM.org is not aware of any time in the past when a phone bank system has been used to contact those who have complied with federal law.

From April 25th through May 1st, 2010 the U.S. Census Bureau website http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/jobs/temp-workers.htmlreported 575,700 temporary workers were employed for the 12 Regional Census Centers which cover the entire U.S. The website does not provide a break down of how many of these temporary workers are participating in the phone bank system.

Some estimate these phone calls may be costing American taxpayers millions of dollars. RFFM.org is reporting possibly thousands of similiar follow-up phone calls are being made by Census Bureau employees.

The U.S. Census Bureau could not be reached for comment regarding the issue.

June 04, 2010

In January of 2010--for the first time in nearly three decades--Social Security recipients did not receive a Cost Of Living Adjustment (COLA). It is being reported the COLA freeze may remain in effect for up to three years. COLA's are calculated according to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI is a measure which estimates the average cost of goods and services purchased by households.

The U.S. Dept. of Labor calculates the CPI. Seniors and the disabled who receive Social Security benefits did not receive a COLA in 2010 because the CPI indicated there was no increase in inflation.

Now, there are those who swear by the CPI, but every American who purchases goods and services knows full well there has been an increase in the cost of living. Anyone who disagrees with this fact must not do grocery shopping or pay utility bills and they must be living in a cocoon.

The COLA freeze will save the U.S. government billions of dollars and there have been reports there will not be a COLA for two years or more. Someone must have a crystal ball at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics which can predict there willbe no inflation for the next two years or more. However, some economists are predicting the United States may go through a period of hyper-inflation in the near future.

To soften the political blow from the fall out regarding the COLA freeze, late last year President Barack Obama suggested a one-time payment of $250 for Social Security recipients. However, when Republicans suggested the money for the one-time payment come out of Obama's $862 billion stimulus package, this issue was taken off the table.

Why didn't Social Security recipients receive a COLA? Democrats had other ideas for use of the stimulus money, including building tunnels for migrating turtles, trains for visitors who want to get a good look at California's wine country and we must not forget the millions of dollars that were allocated for Congressional Districts that do not exist.

The strange thing is the Obama administration and the Democratic Party poured salt on an open wound with the passage of health care reform which cut Medicare by $500 billion. The message seniors are being sent is they are expendable--both in life and at the ballot box. But, one of these days, someone's going to remind the Democratic brain trust that the senior voting bloc they controlled for generations may have flown out the window with fiscal responsibility.

Perhaps the Democrats were counting on the votes of illegal immigrants (via the passage of comprehensive immigration reform) to replace the political support they had received from the elderly. However, due to the failure of the U.S. government to enforce existing immigration laws, this issue may have a huge impact in the upcoming midterm election and even more Democrats may be left out in the cold.

Therefore, I would expect those who receive Social Security to get a little financial bump before November. The Democrats aren't that stupid...or are they?

May 11, 2010

On April 20, 2010 an oil rig which BP (Beyond Petroleum) was leasing exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. This catastrophic event resulted in the deaths of nine BP employees who were working on the oil rig at the time. At first, the destruction of the facility was reported only as a human tragedy, which it was. However, since the explosion--which is now being reported on as an ecological disaster of monumental proportions--a number of questions have arisen which ultimately will have to be addressed.

Of course, at the moment, the primary concern--and rightfully so--surrounds the impact of what is now being called the worst oil spill in American history. With thousands of barrels of oil being released into the Gulf of Mexico each day, BP and the U.S. government must find a way to cap the wellhead, which is almost a mile beneath the ocean's surface. The platform was located 50 miles south of the mouth of the Mississippi River, but the resulting spill will have a devastating impact on the environment and the industry of states in the surrounding area for decades to come.

To say the timing and cause of the tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico is suspect would be a leap across a conspiratorial threshold that many would view as inappropriate. Yet such concerns are--and should be--considered valid, due to a number of factors.

Recently, a high-ranking representative of BP did not dismiss the possibility the explosion at the drilling site could have been more than an accident caused by flawed technology or human error.

Could the BP disaster have been an act of terrorism? The response to this query is a resounding "yes!" and here's why. Earlier this year, President Barack Obama announced he would allow oil exploration in some coastal areas, including the eastern seaboard of the United States. It must be noted, the administration did not provide new drilling leases to oil companies. There is a misconception regarding Obama's announcement. Many believed a President who was hostile to the search, recovery and use of fossil fuels available in America--which most experts say our country could tap into, in order to lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil--was softening his position on the issue. But environmentalists, in virtual unanimity, were opposed to Obama's announcement.

The oil spill in the Gulf has also brought up some questions regarding negotiations between Democrats and Republicans concerning pending climate control legislation, including Cap and Trade--which is high on Obama's political agenda. We have learned some Republicans, including Sen. Lindsey Graham, were willing to sign on to this controversial alternative energy bill, due to Obama's pledge to members of the GOP that he would allow for expanded oil exploration.

But, again, many question whether new drilling leases would ever be issued. The Cap and Trade bill, which passed in the House of Representatives in 2009, was politically toxic and there was no way the legislation would have made it through the Senate without a conciliatory gesture, like Obama's edict regarding oil exploration in areas which were previously off the table. The mainstream media (MSM) was virtually silent about the negotiations between Republicans and the administration concerning support for Cap and Trade.

More important, the MSM has also been silent in its reporting on domestic eco-terrorism conducted by groups which believe the ends justify the means when it comes to "protecting" the environment. Subsequently, those who are against the utilization of non-renewable resources within the United States, both on land and water, might go to any lengths to sabotage such efforts. Already Governors in coastal states have voiced concerns about expanded exploration and the construction of facilities off of their coast lines, due to the tragic BP spill.

Most certainly, there will be time to investigate the cause of the explosion that destroyed the BP oil rig. Indeed, the sabotage of such facilities, like the drilling platform leased by BP would meet not only a domestic terrorist agenda, but a foreign one as well. After all, keeping America attached to the Middle East and the oil which comes from that region would essentially kill two birds with one stone.